Indigenous Peoples in the Philippines

A Country Case Study

By:
David E. De Vera
Executive Director, PAFID
Presented at the RNIP Regional Assembly
Hanoi, Vietnam
August 20-26, 2007

I. The Indigenous Peoples in the Philippines: A Background

The Philippines has a total land area of

30 Million Hectares. Half of the country
is hilly and mostly categorized as a
Forest Zone and part of the Public
Domain. As of the year 2005, the
country has a population of 85 Million.
There are 112 ethnolinguistic groups in
the country who comprise nearly 15% of
the total population of the country.

The Philippines is slowly losing its

forest cover and has to cope with an
influx of mining activities in the
uplands.1 Furthermore, demand for
land and natural resources continue to
rise with the unabated migration of
lowland families into the mountains.
Thus there exists a very volatile mix of
stakeholders who are in a very strict
competition for the limited resources of
the uplands.

A vast majority of the 12 Million Areas Identified as Ancestral Domains

population of Indigenous Peoples in the
Philippines reside in the uplands which they claim as part of their traditional
territories. Most of the remaining natural resources in the country are found
within the traditional lands of the Indigenous Peoples

1
The Philippine Government has identified mining as a priority industry
The Indigenous Communities:

The Indigenous People represent

nearly 14% of the country’s
population. They are among the
poorest and the most disadvantaged
social group in the country. Illiteracy,
unemployment and incidence of
poverty are much higher among
them than the rest of the population.
IP settlements are remote, without
access to basic services, and are
characterized by a high incidence of
morbidity, mortality and
malnutrition.

There are One hundred Ten

(110) major Indigenous groups in the
Philippines. Most of the Indigenous
Peoples depend on traditional
swidden agriculture utilizing
available upland areas. However,
most of these traditional cultivation
sites and fallow areas have now been degraded and are further threatened by the
influx of migrant farmers who have introduced unsustainable lowland-
commercial farming practices. Furthermore, most Indigenous Communities do
not have legal recognition over their traditional lands, thus limiting their ability
to freely conduct their livelihood activities and are denied access to other natural
resources in their communities.

II. Recent national policy and developments on indigenous peoples

In recent years, the Philippine Government has made major policy reforms
in order to address the serious problem of the lack of tenurial security among
IPs and local communities. The Philippines has led the way in the SEA region as
it had pioneered the use of long-term stewardship agreements as a tenurial
instrument to recognize the resource management rights of IPs within
forestlands in the early 1980s’.

But perhaps the most radical policy reform with regards to Tenurial
Security of Indigenous Peoples in the region was the enactment of the
Indigenous People Rights Act (IPRA) by the Philippine Government in 1997. The
IPRA goes beyond the contract-based resource management agreements between
the state and the community as it recognizes the “ownership” of the Indigenous
Community over their traditional territories which include land, bodies of water
and all other natural resources therein. Furthermore, the IPRA provides tenurial
security to the community with issuance of an ownership Title (Certificate of
Ancestral Domain/Land Title) to the concerned Indigenous clan or community.

With the passage of IPRA in 1997, the law recognized the rights of
Indigenous peoples over their ancestral domains and provided for a process of
titling of lands through the issuance of Certificates of Ancestral Domain Titles
(CADT). The law gave jurisdiction of all ancestral domain claims to the National
Commission on Indigenous Peoples (NCIP) including those previously awarded
by the DENR and all future claims that shall be filed.

The new law provided the basis for filing new claims which included the
submission of a valid perimeter map, evidences and proofs, and the
accomplishment of an Ancestral Domain Sustainable Protection Plan (ADSPP).
All existing ancestral domain claims previously recognized through the issuance
of CADCs are required to pass through a process of affirmation for titling.

IPRA included "Self Delineation" as the guiding principle in the in the

identification of AD claims. However, due to the lack of resources and skills in
the NCIP, the Government has not been able to provide the necessary services to
the IP sector to realize this mandate and issue the necessary titles. The new
Arroyo administration through the National Commission on Indigenous Peoples
(NCIP) has committed to fully implement the IPRA and has promised to issue at
least 100 domain titles by mid-2002. However, the current budgetary allocation
for the NCIP and its ancestral domain management activities remain at a paltry
.07% of the national budget. More ominously the situation is not expected to
improve as the trend in budgetary allocation for Government services towards
ancestral domain allocation including community resources management
continues to decrease. 2

In its first 3 years of existence the NCIP was not able to issue a single CADT,
rather it certified community consent for dozens of mining applications, an act
which it had no legal power to effect under the IPRA. Initial findings of the
Office of the President’s Performance Audit of the NCIP reveal that the agency is
ill equipped, the staff poorly trained and lacking field experience or appropriate
cultural sensitivity to handle land conflicts and issues of resource access affecting
indigenous communities.

2
see IFAD poverty report 2001 De Vera and Zingapan
 With a budget of P530 million for its national operations and a staffing
pattern beleaguered by a lack of capacity and skills, the NCIP faces severe
constraints in serving the aspirations of the indigenous peoples’ sector. Thus it is
actively seeking the help of the private sector in particular members of the Civil
Society who have had extensive experience in the field of Ancestral Domain
Claims and Community Mapping.

However, the Indigenous Peoples (IP) in the Philippines remain as the most
marginalized sector of society. This status continues despite the tremendous
inroads achieved by communities, partners and advocates through years of
struggle. In 1997, as result vigilance and the sustained advocacy of the IP sector
and its partners, the Indigenous Peoples Rights Act (IPRA) was enacted. This
provided venues and legal backbone for the recognition of the Traditional Rights
of communities over their ancestral domain.

In a nutshell, the IPRA provides for the recognition of the traditional rights
of Indigenous Peoples over their ancestral domains through the issuance of
Certificates of Ancestral Domain Titles (CADT). It recognizes the rights of ICC’s
to define their development priorities through their own Ancestral Domain
Sustainable Development and Protection Plan (ADSDPP) and exercise
management and utilize the natural resources within their traditional territories.

Ten years hence, only 41 Titles covering half a million hectares of land have
been awarded to Indigenous Communities. To date, very limited development
activities in support of the Ancestral Domain Ancestral Domain Management
Plans have been implemented in the IPO areas. Problems in the implementation
of the IPRA continue to fester and severely limit the capacity of Indigenous
Communities to truly benefit from the mandate of IPRA.

The inability of the Government to fully implement the IPRA in order to

address the problems and concerns of the Indigenous Communities is rooted in
conflicting policies, capacity gaps and a questionable commitment to empower
Indigenous Communities. The urgency of the problem is underscored by overt
encouragement on the part of Government of the entry of large-scale commercial
investment into traditional lands to install extractive industries which include
open-pit mining, palm oil plantations and industrial forest farms.

III. The Philippines and the Outside World

The Philippines holds the distinction of being the 1st Country in the SEA
region to enact a law recognizing the traditional rights of Indigenous Peoples
over Ancestral Domains with the passage of IPRA in the past decade. This
should have established the framework for its international policy direction in
dealing with issues pertaining to Indigenous Peoples rights.

The Philippines is a signatory to the Convention on Biodiversity (CBD)

which lays the Internationally accepted standards on the protection of the rights
and welfare of Indigenous Peoples in the conservation of natural resources
within their territories. The CBD also provides a framework for the recognition
of Traditional Knowledge Systems as an acceptable and viable option for the
management of natural resources and the environment. The Philippine
Government’s participation in the CBD is viewed as a very progressive step
towards the institutionalization of Indigenous Knowledge Systems in the
framework of bio-diversity conservation.

The Philippines joined a growing number of developing countries as

member of the Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT), a highly successful
international filing system for patents that enables inventors and companies to
apply for patent protection in multiple countries by submitting a single
"international" application. The Philippines became the 112th Contracting State of
the PCT when it deposited its instrument of ratification at WIPO on May 17,
2001. The Treaty became effective in the Philippines in August 17, 2001.3

Upon the ratification of the WIPO administered treaty on patents, the

Philippine Government established an Intellectual Property Office (IPO) which
shall be mainly responsible for the enforcement of the terms of the treaty. The
local IPO office officially conducted a consultation session specifically with
Indigenous Leaders and support groups to enable the IPO office and the
stakeholder to fully comprehend the impact of the WIPO treaty in the area of
Traditional Knowledge Systems.

However, in spite of the tremendous advances made by the Indigenous

Communities along with its support groups and advocates, the Philippine
Legislature has yet to ratify the International Labor Organization Convention
169. The convention (ILO 169) is a legal international treaty that provides the
basic legal standards to protect Indigenous Workers within the framework of
respect for indigenous and tribal peoples’ cultures, and their distinct ways of life,
and their traditions and customs. Currently, the ILO advocates for the ratification
of the convention through its INDISCO programme in the Philippines.

While the Philippine has received numerous accolades for passing the
landmark law IPRA, its behavior in the international arena leaves a lot to be
desired. Perhaps the most glaring irony is shown by the Philippine

3
WIPO: News and Events
Government’s refusal to support the adoption of the UN Draft Declaration on the
Rights of Indigenous Peoples during the historic 1st session of the UN Human
Rights Committee last June 2006. The Philippine representative Comm. Janet
Serrano of the National Commission on Indigenous Peoples (NCIP) as well as
Ambassador Lauro Baja of the Department of Foreign Affairs formally
acknowledged in their speech the by saying that the Philippines fully supports
the draft declaration and that it is (the declaration) a priority of the Government.
Surprisingly, the Philippines later adopted a position similar to Canada and New
Zealand which viewed the draft declaration as “fundamentally flawed” and thus
should be discussed at a later date.4

IV. IP Non-Government Organizations and their alliances in the Philippines

The Indigenous Peoples sector in the Philippines enjoys a very broad base
of active support groups. These form a wide spectrum of organizations
representing the academe, civil society and the church. Assistance comes in
varied forms ranging from policy advocacy, community development, technical
assistance and education. It can be said that IP support groups in the Philippines
have gained a certain level of sophistication and specialization in their respective
fields of work.

The enactment of the IPRA has ignited a substantial growth in the number
of NGOs and other social development organizations working with IP
communities. Prior to the passage of the law there was dearth of capable groups
specializing on IP issues. While the increased number of NGOs working on IP
issues bodes well for the future, this has also raised the incidence of conflicts
with communities. There have been numerous instances where well-meaning
NGOs with little or no exposure to the cultures and ways of IP communities but
very eager to implement projects have generated local conflicts among
community members. Furthermore, pressure form funding donors to adhere to
tight project schedules and to produce results have pushed many groups to
resort to shortcuts and thus marginalizing critical community processes.

Indigenous Communities have clearly benefited from the assistance and

support provided by NGOs and other advocates. Currently there are hundreds
of Indigenous Peoples Organizations (IPO) in the country actively engaged in
various activities and are in partnership with the civil, development agencies
including Government. Currently there are several active national Coalitions of
IP communities, the Katutubong Samahan ng Pilipinas, The KAMP and the

4
“Adopt UN Draft Declartion on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Now!”, a manifesto submitted to the Philippine
Government, 2006
NCIPP. Under these national aggrupations are several layers of Regional,
Provincial as well as local IPOs all over the Philippines.

There still divisions among the Indigenous Peoples Movement in the

Philippines. This is expected due to the volatility of the issues that are being
tackled by the sector and the intensity of the personalities involved in the sector.
However, it must be said that there instances where the Civil society and
Government must share the blame in the furtherance of the divisions among the
ranks of the IP sector. IPOs see support groups as a resource thus they will
naturally gravitate to groups that offer logistical, financial and material support.
However, in many instances these are tied up to activities that may run counter
or are in direct conflict to other IP groups. The Government on the other hand,
require IPO partners to adopt Governmental policy positions and demand that
IPs be less critical of its policies, thus putting the IPO in a very difficult and
compromising situation.

The picture though is promising, while there are very strong challenges
against the IPOs in the Philippines, there are very clear signals that show growth
and progress in the sector. While the IPOs still need to build their capacity, most
Civil Society groups working with the sector now have IP community members
among their ranks. In fact in some groups, the majority of the staff and officers of
the organization come from the ranks of Indigenous Communities. Thus, this
explains why the IP agenda clearly resonates in most IP support groups’
activities and policy direction.

V. IP's, poverty alleviation and

environmental protection: links
and connections

Across Asia Indigenous and Local

communities share a common situation
where traditional resource use and land
tenure arrangements are not recognized,
often undermined and labeled as
“unscientific” and primitive, and at times
directly challenged and opposed by
competing interests such as commercial
enterprises including as mining and
logging interests and pressure groups.

The access of local communities and

Indigenous groups over land, seas and
natural resources have gradually
decreased and become limited while control over the same have been partially or
completely been transferred to non-traditional resource managers led by the state
and at times private individuals and entities including NGOs.

In most cases, local and Indigenous communities have been completely

disempowered where the dominant societies have been successful in imposing
other resource-use and tenurial arrangements through legal decrees or at times
by physical force and occupation of traditional territories.

As can be expected, this has resulted into extreme poverty and further
deepening the societal divide, the propensity of conflict has increased more
because of the tremendous population growth that the country has seen in the
last couple of decades. The continuing demand for land and access to natural
resources in order to support the domestic demand and western economies has
had a dramatic impact on the country’s environment. Competition for arable
land has become more intense . Currently it is estimated that there are already 25
Million people (29% of the population of 84 M.) in the uplands where most of the
remaining forests and environmentally critical areas are located. What is
alarming is that the increase in upland population (est. at 10%/annum) is mainly
due to migration. Furthermore, most newly established communities are located
close to a forestland. These new settlements do not offer any viable livelihood
opportunity except those which are directly dependent on the forest resources.

Much of the blame for the tenurial insecurity of Indigenous communities

can be pinned on state policies which invariably attempt to fully control all
utilization and access to the natural resources. The Revised forestry Code of the
Philippines or PD 705 had the dubious distinction of crimininalizing any
occupation and habitation in all forestlands of the Philippines. Under this
regime, forest resources are under the full control of the state where all
processing, distribution and utilization of the forest and its resources was the
exclusive domain of the Government. Sadly, the Government mindset which
created such a policy environment prevails in spite of the enactment of IPRA.
 However, state controlled
forest and natural resource
management has miserably
failed in the Philippines and in
most countries in the region.
The forest cover in the
Philippines has declined at an
uncontrollable rate in the past
5 decades, the 2/3 of the
country’s forest cover was cut.
This rate of destruction ranks
among the highest rate of
forest destruction in the world.
Moreover, the unabated influx
of migrants into traditional
territories and the concomitant
rapid exploitation of natural
resources have reached a
degree where the survival of
indigenous communities as
distinct groups in the country
is in question. 5

Securing tenure over the

land seas and other natural
resources lies at the heart of the Indigenous Communities demands at the local
level all the way to their advocacy in the Global arena. Their lack of control,
access over natural resources and non recognition and respect of their rights over
their territories affect their daily lives , cause extreme poverty and impact on
their survival as a distinct community. Thus, in the past 10 years, the demand
for tenure over land and resources has been the central feature of at least 143
declarations of Indigenous Peoples worldwide.

Indigenous Communities and Land Tenure

Numerous studies have shown that indigenous people operate a well-

developed land allocation and land management system that relies on communal
decision making through traditional structures. Communal forms of land tenure
allow for the rotation of upland agriculture fields, and for the equitable

5
HARIBON, Facts and Figures
distribution of land among community members. However, the ability of a
community to sustain traditional resource management structures depends on
their capacity to exercise control over the resources. Thus the recognition of their
rights over their lands and other natural resources is directly linked with their
continued application of sustainable resource utilization and management
systems.6

1. Tenure and Conservation: The Tagbanwa and Ikalahan Experience

The region is rife with experiences of conservation initiatives that failed

due to the non-recognition of tenure as a prerequisite to foster collective
community action and support. At the same time there have been good examples
of Communities making full use and optimizing the benefits of the recognition of
their land rights to initiate conservation.

Case 1. Tagbanwa of Coron Island, Northern Palawan

Missed Opportunities:

The Calamian Tagbanwa inhabit the beautiful

limestone Coron Island, one of the Calamianes islands
of North Palawan, surrounded by water once rich in
marine resources, the main source of their livelihood. In
the 1980s, declining fisheries in the adjoining Visayas
islands and southern Luzon coasts triggered the
movement of fishers westward into Calamianes waters,
which resulted in over-fishing, illegal fishing, and an
increased human population. To cope with the sudden
population growth, the deficit-ridden municipal
government of Coron attempted to increase revenues
through taxes on the trade of natural resources. It
strictly regulated indigenous lands and local resources
traditionally traded by the indigenous communities and declared them
properties of the municipal government.

By the mid-1980s the waters surrounding the island were being degraded
at an alarming rate by dynamite, cyanide, and other illegal and destructive
fishing methods. The situation was so serious that the Tagbanwa began facing
food shortages. In response to this ecological assault, in 1985 the Tagbanwa
organized the Tagbanwa Foundation of Coron Island, which applied to the

6
Ironside, Jeremy: Securing Tenure Rights for cambodia’s Indigenous Communities
Department of Environmental and Natural Resources (DENR) for a Community
Forest Stewardship Agreement. The Stewardship Agreement would provide a
25-year legal tenure to the Tagbanwa people and allow them to mange their
natural resources through a community forest management plan. In 1990 the
community was awarded the Agreement covering the whole of Coron Island and
a small neighboring Island, Delian. Since the Agreement was part of a national
social forestry program implemented by DENR.

Not satisfied with what

amounted to no more than a
25-year lease on their
ancestral home, the
Tagbanwa Foundation then
went on to use a new law—
known as Administrative
Order Number 2 of 1993—to
pursue a permanent title to
their land. Administrative
Order Number 2, which
proved to be the precursor of
the Indigenous People’s Right
Act, cleared the way for the Tagbanwa to gain control over both land and marine
resources through a rights-based approach to community resource management.
With the help of the Philippine Association for Intercultural Development
(PAFID) a national NGO, the Tagbanwa obtained their Certificate of Ancestral
Domain Claim (CADC) in 1998—the first such certificate in the country that
included both land and marine waters.

The Tagbanwa had secured their land rights not a moment too soon. In
1998, Coron Island was selected as one of eight sites in the Philippines to be
incorporated into the National Integrated Protected Areas System. While it has
long been the goal of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources to
gazette the whole of Coron Island as a protected area, the Tagbanwa have
resisted. They fear losing control over the island despite promises of majority
participation in the protected area’s management board. And they have good
reason to be skeptical: When Coron Island was selected for inclusion in the
NIPAS, it was done so without consultation with the local community and
without seeking its prior consent. Furthermore, the proponents of the proposed
conservation program expressed ambiguity and were non-committal when
pressed by the Tagbanwa for their position and institutional support for the
Ancestral Domain Claim. 7

7
Ferrari, De Vera: Participatory or Rights-Based Approach? Which is best for Indigenous Peoples in the Philippines,
2003
 In spite of the inherent lack of local support for the conservation project,
activities were launched and substantial resources were poured into the island.
The results were not encouraging, participation was limited to community
members who were directly employed with the project. Factions among the
closely-knit families began to emerge. There were instances when community
members participated mainly due to the coercive nature of the Government and
felt that they had no choice but accept the conservation project.

Clearly there was no incentive to

actively participate in an undertaking
that failed to address the most basic
need of the Tagbanwa, which was to
secure legal recognition of their rights
over the lands and seas in Coron. In a
general assembly of the Tagbanwa of
Coron, they officially demanded that the
Island be stricken off as a conservation
area and removed from the target sites
of the DENR.

After 3 years, the widely

advertised and substantially funded
project ended with a whimper. The
Island was not declared as an “official”
park nor was it integrated into the
National parks System. Project assets
were quietly turned over to the local
government. To this day, very few
Tagbanwa remember the project and its
objective to conserve the resources of the island.

And in 2001, the Tagbanwa successfully obtained a Certificate of Ancestral

Domain Title (CADT). It was the first successful claim and Title that included
parts of the ocean in the ancestral domain. The Tagbanwa take pride in the fact
that the initiative to secure tenure over the land and seas came from them and
their active participation in the whole process illustrated their intense desire to
gain recognition of their rights over their ancestral domain As the Tagbanwa
Foundation’s chairman, Rodolfo Aguilar, explains, “We are a living example of
how IPRA can be used successfully by indigenous peoples.”
 With the issuance of the Certificate of Ancestral Domain Certificate
(CADC) in 1998 and the consequent warding of a Certificate of Ancestral
Domain Title (CADT), the Tagbanwa have since been able to achieve major
gains. They were able to convince the Government to recognize the local
traditional leadership as an “interim Protected Area Management Board”. They
have drafted and finalized and are now currently implementing their Ancestral
Domain management Plan which provides guidelines for the utilization and
management of the land and seas. Curiously, a recurring theme of the Ancestral
Domain management Plan was the conservation of the natural resources within
the island.

Today, most of Coron’s forests are still intact, and the ADMP of the
Tagbanwa has been recognized by the Local Government, and more importantly
the local tourism industry operators are now required to secure annual permits
from the Tagbanwa community before they could bring tourists to the island.

Enforcement of the traditional rules of resource utilization in the ocean

has not been as successful as that in the terrestrial areas. While there has been a
noticeable decrease in illegal fishing within the reefs covered by the Tagbanwa
title, the limited capacity of the community to physically enforce their rules and
policies have enabled some unscrupulous individuals to take advantage of the
situation.

The success of the Tagbanwa in securing tenure over their traditional

territories has inspired eleven other Tagbanwa communities to file claims over
their territories. Furthermore, the CADT has provided the Tagbanwa community
of Coron the wherewithal to be respected and be at par with other stakeholders
in the area. This new arrangement will go a long way in enabling the Tagbanwa
to pursue their identified development and conservation priorities.

Case 2. The Ikalahan of Sta. Fe Nueva Vizcaya

From adversaries to partners:

In 1974, the Ikalahan community in Northern Philippines

were granted exclusive rights to use and manage at least
15,000 hectares of forestlands through a Communal Forest
stewardship agreement. The contract would last for 25
years and was renewable for another 25 years. The
awarding of the CFSA capped years of struggle by the
Ikalahan people to gain land tenure security over their
traditional lands.

The initiative to secure legal recognition and land tenure security was incited by
a Government policy that declared state ownership over all forestlands. As such
it had the sole prerogative to allocate, distribute and determine the development
activities that could be conducted in these areas. The Philippine government
initially had plans to “develop” the Ikalahan domain; however the people
opposed the plan and instead negotiated with the Government and offered their
services to “protect” the forests.

Predictably, the Government resisted the offer of the people citing their lack of
“legal personality” to negotiate with the Government. Furthermore, their
capacity to manage the forestland was questioned and their lack of managerial
and technical expertise was pointed out.

With persistence and continuous follow-up, the Ikalahan people were able to
slowly convince the Government of the wisdom of recognizing their authority
and capacity to manage the forests within their ancestral domains. The Ikalahan
successfully pushed the argument that it would be to the best interest of the
Philippine Government to recognize them as the forest stewards as they will now
own the responsibility of protecting a very critical watershed at no cost to the
Government. The problem of a legal personality was easily addressed by
organizing a local Peoples Organization which adopted the traditional
leadership as its officers and had the same registered with the Securities and
Exchange Commission (SEC).

With the help of support groups

and other Non-Government
Organizations, community elders
and the local Government the
Kalahan Educational Foundation
established forest management
rules and policies that addressed
both conservation and livelihood
issues and concerns. The
overriding aim was to provide
enough opportunities for the
community members to
sustainably engage in livelihood
activities but at the same time
conserve the remaining
resources. The domain was delineated into several zones where the livelihood
areas were designated to spare the primary forests from further degradation.
The KEF board composed of elders established community rules on resource use.
All rules and policies were presented before the community in various
assemblies in order to gain the required consensus. All rules were enforced in
coordination with the local Government so as not to create conflicts and establish
support. Traditional conflict resolution structures such as the Tong-tongan were
adopted to resolve conflicts in resource use. Other traditional systems of
mediation were continuously tapped to settle problems within the community.

The Ikalahan today through the KEF have developed a simple but sustainable
agro-forestry system where sustainable livelihood can still be undertaken within
the secondary forests. The old-growth forests continue to exist and large sections
of the domain are currently being reforested.

Clearly the Ikalahan of Nueva Vizcaya confirms the principle that the recognition
of the rights of local communities and Indigenous Peoples over their traditional
territories is central in fostering collective action for resource conservation.8

The CFSA of the Ikalahan people which in 1974 was simply known as MOA No.
01 (memorandum of Agreement No. 1) has since evolved into many forms
through countless programs and projects aimed at securing the support and
providing tenure for local communities in the conservation the environment. The
Certificate of Ancestral Domain Title (CADT) is one of the land tenure
instruments that traces its roots to the initiative of the Ikalahan people in
securing MOA No. 01.

VI. Lessons and Opportunites

Land tenure is key piece of conservation management. Management of

the territory cannot proceed without securing tenure. It must also be
acknowledged that traditional resource management has big contribution to
conservation. However, Indigenous Peoples/local Communities can only
practice traditional management in a territory. If access and control of the
territory is not secured, they cannot exercise traditional resource management.

Opportunities for partnership or sense of ownership or stake are limited if

they do not themselves have tenure, control or access to the resource.
Communities who do not have tenure will most often tend to view the
conservation interventions as just another conservation project. Participation in
such an initiative will be limited to employment opportunities provided by the
8
Magno, Francisco, Crafting Conservation: Forestry Social Capital, and Tenurial Security in Northern Philippines,
University of Hawaii, 1997
project and the coercive nature of the Government partner. Community initiated
participation and commitment can never be gained if tenure is not properly
addressed.

If tenure is not adequately addressed, external conservation interventions may

unintentionally facilitate external arrangements that will have dire consequences
for them such as ecotourism. In the case of Coron the island was marketed so
much for investment, a development that led land speculators to begin grabbing
lands for resort development, to a situation which the community found
overwhelming and eventually generated competing claims from outsiders.

However, it must be noted that even if the effect was unintentional, the
community will be dealing with the consequences of the intervention long after
the project has terminated. What is the impact of facing these consequences
without tenure, without legal rights, legal protection?

Local initiative to negotiate and engage other stakeholders will be severely

limited is tenure is not adequately addressed. Successful outcomes in
negotiations happen if the IPs have collective land tenure and control the speed
and process of the negotiations process and deal with the outside world along
with hybrid institutions with legal personality which nevertheless remains
underpinned with customary law. (Colchester)

The contribution of support groups such as NGOs has to be recognized. Current

arrangements, requirements and processes that will allow communities to secure
tenure are not within the experience of most Indigenous communities. Most
communities still lack the capacity to engage the Government bureaucracy and
the organizational demands once they are required to legally negotiate with the
state or other entities and stakeholders. However, their role must be strictly
within what is identified by the community as their specific task.

Conservation projects will be supported and embraced by Indigenous

peoples/Local communities if they see a direct link with their ability exercise
control and gain access to their resources. Major activities in conservation
projects such as resource inventories, planning can be easily packaged to
accommodate and address the need for tenure security of the local people. For
instance, resource inventories could be used to identify the local names of the
resources and the places where they are located. The documentation could then
be used as evidences and proofs to strengthen the traditional rights and/or
claims of the local people. Planning activities can be done along with the
traditional leaders where their role as facilitators for consensus building is
utilized. Action Planning should also include a clear target and schedule that
shall address the tenurial security issue. At all times conservation initiatives
should not shy away and skirt the tenurial security issue if the support of the
community is required.

VII. Challenges and Recommendations

Securing tenure follows a very complicated and arduous process. The

very idea of securing tenure for a marginalized sector of the society challenges
existing paradigms, mindsets, shakes the status quo and makes people and
institutions in power uncomfortable. However, there have been experiences that
can provide insights on the challenges that communities and support groups face
as they go about securing legal tenure over their resources.

The issue equity among stakeholders has always provided a great

challenge to local communities and proponents of tenurial rights. Demand for
tenurial security is often situated in environmentally critical areas which do not
only have an impact to local communities but to a greater number of
stakeholders. For instance, the Ikalahan domain is the last remaining intact
watershed for the downstream communities of central Philippines. Securing
tenure is a rights-based initiative which recognizes the Ikalahan community’s
inherent traditional rights over the watershed. However, the concerns of the
downstream communities have to be equally addressed.

Sometimes local government feel threatened when tenure is secured by

local communities. Traditional structures are seen as rivals for local power, these
will have implications for local power relations (economic, social and political). It
may even exacerbate conflict with local government but there are ways to
mitigate this. Thus the need to continue to explore appropriate collaborative
management models has to be undertaken.

Concerns have been raised on the coverage and extents of traditional

territories. There are no hard and fast rules on how large a claim can be. Every
community will have their own basis to define what is traditionally owned,
managed or controlled. Problems will arise since most areas within the region
already have multiple stakeholders. Governments can regulate and draft
guidelines that shall define what can be claimed or locally managed.

In the Philippines, concerns on the capacity of communities to physically

enforce their authority on wide tracts of traditional territories have been raised.
With claims ranging from a low of 1 hectare to a high of 120,000 hectares, the
ability of communities to enforce their local rules and effectively manage the
domain has to be taken into consideration. While it is expected that the
Government has the responsibility to take police action and enforce a legally
recognized tenurial instrument. The reality is that it has neither the resources nor
willingness to impose itself and enforce the law. More often that not,
Governments take an adversarial position and pin the blame on the community
for having filed such a huge claim and now they shall have to be responsible for
the damages that have been done to the environment due to their inability to
enforce their rules.

The initiative to secure tenure or tenure itself invariably forces one to fall
within the framework of governments. Land and resources will be commodified
once it becomes the subject of an agreement or title. Sometimes this cannot be
reconciled or accommodated by traditional structures which are not flexible
enough to co-exist. Some Governments demand absolute authority in almost all
facets of resource management while some may allow for limited power sharing.
Some communities on the other hand do not trust Government institutions and
feel uncomfortable dealing with them. The challenge is how to enable local
communities to engage the Government and/or dominant sector of society.
Resistance will always be strong but eventually these will change.

The Ikalahan case for one shows how they were able to slowly chip away
at the bureaucratic walls thrown at them. Other Indigenous Communities in the
Philippines now face the same dilemma as they have been required to establish a
legal entity to enable them to negotiate and enter into contracts with the
Government for a resource utilization tenurial instruments. Conflicts are
expected as the Government asserts itself and its authority to regulate and be the
sole protector of the environment. For the Indigenous Communities however,
securing tenure over their land is an expression of self determination and a
renewal of their inherent right to own, utilize and manage their land resources.
Thus, a common ground and compromise should be established in order to
ensure the continuity of the role of Indigenous peoples as stewards of the
environment. Such is a win-win situation where the communities shall flourish,
and their rights are respected while the natural environment is protected.